Get PJ Media on your Apple

Spengler

Except for Hispanics and evangelical Protestants, America’s fertility rate during the 2000s wasn’t much different from Europe’s 1.5 children per female. The Hispanic rate appears to be falling, so the Pew forecast might be exaggerated. The evangelicals, meanwhile, are retaining perhaps a third of their young people. The millennial generation in the U.S. marries later, if at all, and has fewer children.

 

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Top Rated Comments   
Reading from the top I thought nobody was going to say that. The numbers we're given count both those removed from the interior (few) and those turned around at the border. I haven't seen good estimates of those who don't get caught but the guesses tend to be considerably higher than 'removed.'

Furthermore everyplace I go has more brown faces from year to year.

I wish I could believe there's a net decline of the illegal foreign born, but I just don't see that evidence.

Legal immigration is good -- naturalized citizens are among the best Americans I know. A growing non-assimilating and resentful underclass is NOT GOOD.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
As a Canadian, I too would like to see that "Canadian style" immigration policy!

I just spent another weekend facing down 5000 Muslims in Toronto screaming for the death of Jews and waving signs with swastikas.

We take in thousands of "refugees" every year who bring their "old country" grievances and conspiracy theories here. Many of them are "educated," too. Both the Muslims who persecuted Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant through our "Human Rights" Commissions were engineers; one was a professor of engineering.

I hear horror stories all the time from infidels who work in engineering and medicine with Muslims, including their supervisors, who blithely deny the Holocaust, praise the Ayatollah, refuse to speak to infidel women and demand prayer rooms in major (and minor) Canadian corporations. Complain to those Human Rights Commissions? A Muslim has never been successfully prosecuted as far as I know.

I could go on but I haven't even had my first coffee yet.

One thing we DO have going for us? We ship our Mexican temporary workers home at the end of every harvest. Between that and the snow, that's managed to help Canada avoid the horrible mess that Mexicans have made of American culture: the drunk driving, gangs, animal abuse, indifference to education, compulsive napping and other wonders of Mexican culture you're now importing and excusing.

Press "1" for "America is over." And Canada is bringing up the rear.

And by the way: I get called a "White Supremacist" up here for voicing such opinions, but quantity doesn't guarantee quality. What good is increased non-Mexican fertility if the results are a nation of Honey Boo Boos?
(show less)
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree that the drop in white fertility is the great catastrophe...

...but the drop in white fertility is not unconnected with mass immigration.

Mass immigration pushes up the cost of housing, makes sending kids to public schools a less desirable option (hence paying taxes and private school fees), puts downward pressure on wages (making it harder to support a family), and compels whites to spend more time in school (instead of making babies) so they can have good jobs... just to name a few.

Mass immigration makes it harder for middle class whites to have a large middle class family... so they don't. They have small middle class families. Hence our troubles.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (86)
All Comments   (86)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
What these figures show is that, far being a threat, immigration is an absolute necessity.
So instead of striving to restrict immigration, we should be focusing on improving assimilation.
The world needs more Americans.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the figures don't show is that large sections of that inflow are a permanent underclass and a permanent drain on the federal treasury
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
But they are a permanent voting block for the democrat party for obvious reasons.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Democrats Admit Amnesty Is For Political Purposes



Posted 07/28/2014 06:53 PM ET



Politics: Give us your poor, your tired, your future Democrats waiting to be registered. That's what some in the party are saying as they urge the president to pursue immigration goals even if it hurts in the '14 midterms.

In other words, damn the political torpedoes and full speed ahead in the fundamental demographic and political transformation of America.

"You'll always have members whose political vulnerability they tie entirely to immigration," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. "We didn't make progress when we were in the majority because we were being protective of those (members) on immigration reform. At some point do you worry more about the future or do you continue to put off the inevitable by not taking action?"

For Democrats such as Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., amnesty and the political benefits stemming from it are inevitable. They are quite willing to use children to exploit the inherent compassion of the American people if it means ensuring the political future of the Democratic Party through the gratitude of millions of illegal aliens allowed to come here and stay.

Gutierrez recently told a La Raza conference that it was only a "down payment" that President Obama gave the Latino community with his Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program that halted the deportation of 600,000 of "our people":

"Now it is time for the president in the United States ... (to) free the mom and dads of the DREAMers and to go further — be broad and expansive and generous."

And just how many would he eventually like to sign up? "I think we can get 3 or 4, maybe even 5 million people," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." If you can't persuade voters, you can always import them.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has noted, "the president is considering a grant of 'work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants.' He says DACA has been widely misinterpreted as applying only to children. But in fact, DACA applies to individuals up to 30 years of age and provides actual amnesty papers, photo ID and work permits to illegal immigrants who can then take any job in America."

Now we have the president proposing to Central American leaders that we send the equivalent of college recruiters down to their countries with applications and "permisos" and to transport, presumably at taxpayer expense, those who would otherwise sneak past the Border Patrol — sort of a Berlin airlift for illegal aliens.

All of which is designed to fundamentally transform the demographics and politics of the United States and to punish Americans who believe, as President Reagan did, that a country without borders is not a country.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/072814-710677-gutierrez-seeks-amnesty-to-punish-americans.htm#ixzz38tvYwDpY

6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Goldman seems to be calling for an ever increasing population, and arguing that a declining population is disastrous. I don't agree, for one thing a permanently increasing population is an impossibility, and must negatively impact our environment perhaps to our deadly cost.
The answer to this question is to increase productivity through automation and use of robotics so that a declining workforce can effectively meet societies general needs. A declining workforce should act as a wage enhancer in the same way that an expanding economy would.
The real problem is the inter-generational debt, our great granchildren (and beyond) are being saddled with the cost of hamburgers consumed by todays pensioners. This is what is completely unsustainable. A declining population would probably greatly enhance the lives of the citizens of tommorrow.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
The earth might be finite but that need not apply to the rest of the universe.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with K. Shaidle (briefly quantity should never be confused with quality). (The "highly educated" as equaling "better" quality immigrant is also a suspect argument -- neither Canada nor the United States needs more "academics" of the Leftist, "we despise the West" persuasion.)
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
IN the past people had lots of kids to work the farm or to take care of them when they got old. How much fertility decline is related to retirement entitlements? IF the government will be supporting you when you're old, that surely reduces the incentives for more kids - at least for many folks.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The most destructive force the West has unleashed on the environment, the world's economy and cultural stability is actually that tiny contraceptive pill that became available in 1960. Think of it, and if you can, please read the Encyclical Humanae Vitae,(July 1968) even if you are not Catholic. I am sure you shall find that document was prophetic. Also carefully examine the statistics on the pill's general availability and usage and compare the graphs to the economy, national debt, runaway immigration, crime, abortion. You shall see an eerie correlation. In ancient times the "closing of the womb" was considered one of the harshest divine punishments. What would ancient cultures think of a nation, indeed of a world, "closing the womb" of their women by means of a nature-altering poison? Would they say we are committing suicide?
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
A brief note to some of commenters here: If you find yourself saying "This time it's different" you may be speaking nonsense.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
One problem with restricting immigration to the upper classes is that it's those classes that regard the US as a rival elite. I haven't forgotten that the 911 attack was organized by a tycoon from a hereditary monarchy.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is a solution:

SHUT DOWN the WELFARE STATE.

Immigrants will be forced to be hard working americans; those who are not up to that, will self deport or perish after a life of misery.

The BIG problem: Conservatives, republicans and other so called freedom defenders and pro-capitalists have surrendered to leftist core tenets like social security, social safety net, welfare state, affordable healthcare, etc, etc, etc...
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Some have surrendered to the welfare state. Some of us have not. But we're kind of herded into it -- we didn't get asked about Social Security or Medicare.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Whether you want to personalize it as God's design, or view it more impersonally, sex drive and its intendent pleasure was often the reason for the large families of the past, not people's choosing such.

Now people have a choice and many are saying "no" to large families.

It is easy to write this off as selfish or hedonistic and in some cases it may be. But from what I have seen it often is more in line with this Aesop's fable "The Lioness and the Vixen":

A Lioness and a Vixen were talking together about their young, as mothers will, and saying how healthy and well-grown they were, and what beautiful coats they had, and how they were the image of their parents. "My litter of cubs is a joy to see," said the Fox; and then she added, rather maliciously, "But I notice you never have more than one." "No," said the Lioness grimly, "but that one's a lion."

— Quality, not quantity.

Among my friends many fathers and mothers made the choice to have only one or two children -- not for ease, but so they could make sure their children had every possible advantage: A lot of personal attention. Carefully chosen (and often expensive) schooling. Development of their personal abilities and talents and help overcoming their personal shortcomings.

Is this a universal good? I cannot say. Certainly there are other gifts that come from being in a large family. But this I will say: Many of the children of whom I write have excelled in life -- not just materially, but in every way, including that of themselves going on to have strong family values.

It is often the case that what is good for the individual and what is good for the greater society are somewhat in conflict. In the end each couple will need to decide this for themselves.

Personally I was thankful to have had that choice.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not selfish - it's progress. As you said, technology makes it physically possible for people to have sex without having children. However, technology also makes it much easier for children to survive to adulthood and after. And most people don't need a big family to help around the farm or the workshop.

You're right in pointing out that fewer children means each child gets more attention. I'm not sure if most people consider this when deciding how many to have, but fewer children also means each one can inherit more when the parents die. It's also easier to make a will, and there's less chance of the offspring fighting over who gets what.

Historically, large families weren't always considered a blessing. Depended on the period, the culture, and the family's specific circumstances. There's no reason why we should favor one over the other.

Is Spengler really suggesting that we're in a reproductive arms race against "lesser breeds without the law?"
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is this progress in the sense of a demonstrable improvement or progress in the sense of "things are more like the way they are now than ever before"?

Are small families better when it's possible to get ahead without inheritance?

There's nothing wrong with a reproductive arms race provided there's no cheating (e.g., a welfare state or immigration restrictions).
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
But there is a Welfare State and automation,

And there is unrestricted immigration of the unskilled; who must remain unassimilated in order to preserve a Post War and pre Oil Shock political arrangement long past it's expiration date.

The political hegemony and secular orientation of the big cities is preserved, as is the philosophical hegemony of secular ideology of those political machines

It is a formula for revolutionary change, generating both the ossified society and the disruptive events that destroy it: Housing Boom economy and sub-prime melt down

Production occurs outside of the City, both agricultural and industrial. Management occurs outside of the City. Soldiers are quartered outside of the City Increases in valuation of assets and thus wealth occur in the City. increases in expenditure and immigration, and thus population growth occur in the City. And the Poor are encouraged to bey for the Rich. The soldiers were exiled somewhere between MacArthur's suppression of the Bonus Army and the Peace Movement of the 1960's. the Managers left willingly in the 1950's and 1960's. It was called White Flight. They were following the tradesmen who stereotypicallly moved to a place called Levitt Town Policemen and Firemen lef in the 1970's. The political Class welcomed these developments the way that Louis XIV and Colbert fostered the growth of manufactories in the cities and and the population growth in the countryside that impoverished the Nobility, created the bourgeoisie. It is the lead-up toFrench Revolution in rreverse
5 weeks ago
5 weeks ago Link To Comment
Basically, yes. If you have fewer children than replacement level (2.1 per female, which allows for child mortality plus a certain number of childless people) than your society is doomed no matter how well you take care of your children. No society has ever let this happen without being overrun from the outside. What we're seeing happen in the U.S. and Europe is essentially what happened to the Roman Empire. The barbarians didn't take over until the locals couldn't stop them.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
No economy can grow without population growth. That is a fact. The US has been growing its economy on debt (as many other developed countries) since the early or mid 80's just when the "hole" created by the 60's pill appeared in the population. The extraordinary growth of the US economy in the post-war period coincides step-by-step with the baby boom. One is not the product of the other, they are part of a cycle that even the ancient cultures noticed: lots of babies, lots of farmers, lots of soldiers, long periods of stable food supplies and happy elders taken care for. You can go to biblical times and the concept runs steady all the way to late modernity. This is what "choice" and "progress" do to your culture: if Joey is not born, José or Yusuf will move in. Think about it.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well yes, but automation has turned this on it's head: Marginal farmers grow drugs like tobacco, coca, khat, poppy and subsidized staples like corn which is rendered profitable as sour mash Marginal workers and disused slaves on the dole consume them; The cotton, and everything else, still gets picked. Marginal soldiers become mercenaries and vigilantes protecting the productive. This is the norm between the US border and the Argentine border. Conditions diffuse.

Battlefield automation forces the attacker, and thus the Defender under ground. in CIA contractors working for Xe/Blackwater, chasing Al Qaeda terrorists, both of whom are under contract and filling out expense reports. Every so often a drone strikes. There are sill one sided mechanized assaults and vollies of cruise missiles Technologies diffuse.

By definition Joey was born, as were Jose and Yusef. By definition lumpy wasn't born. Sometimes they must work together, even though they shouldn't, being at cross purposes. Sometimes they kill each other, because it is impossible to kill each other all the time even if you are at cross purposes. Our Way of Life the Bronze Continent, and the Caliphate are mutually exclusive. Think Libya.
5 weeks ago
5 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is a factor worthy of consideration.

Victorian women, who had been indoctrinated that sex was itself degrading were told "close your eyes and think of England." If they could so that for one night I suppose we can be expected to do it for 18, 20 or more years. ;-)
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All